I think that we should be represented by people from a mix of different backgrounds and disciplines. I do believe that those currently in power should be required to have a solid understanding of scientific principles, however. Issues in science and technology are more pertinent to our everyday lives than they have ever been before.

Should it be a part of the criteria? no.... I would much rather them have "executive leadership" experience as in a governor. As well as a good understanding of a wide range of areas. I would much rather them govern from a strong leadership background rather than a specific ideology.

Should it be a part of the criteria? no.... I would much rather them have "executive leadership" experience as in a governor. As well as a good understanding of a wide range of areas. I would much rather them govern from a strong leadership background rather than a specific ideology.

Scientists? Men and women who cherish critical thinking, reasoning, and logic? Absolutely! Get rid of all those racist, antiquated, whackjobs who ignore critical thinking, reason, and logic. Sick of my representatives being backwardsass people who think science is controversy and magic rules the natural universe.

Like Marvolo I say "hell yes". I agree, because Science is based on reality, and like he pointed out Politics is about dogmas. They pit "-isms" artificially up against each other and people die in the process. Science doesn't do this. It's concerned with the here and now, and it's about fixing problems, not stirring up trouble for money and votes.

Implementing it is very hard though in my opinion. Scientists can't afford to become dogmatic. I could easily see a scientist in power because he wanted to push a theory that wasn't true. So to me it's a great idea with a lot of Swiss cheese holes in it. It's something that needs SERIOUS consideration though.

Curious to hear the difference between the two. Many seem to associate strong leadership as being steadfast in principle towards ones ideaology.

I don't mind if they lean more towards conservative or liberal ideas (I do not want someone that is far right or far left but it doesn't matter to me if there is a D or an R next to their name), as long as their leadership style, in the past as say a "Governor", has shown them to be leader that brings people together rather than divides.

Then how does that last sentence fit in with the topic of the thread in any way, shape or form?

I was simply saying that being a Scientist, or Engineer doesn't really matter to me, I am one that looks at their leadership in the past, rather than their R or D ideology next to their name as in "their political ideology". So I answered the question, and stated what I actually saw as important to me in a political leader.

I was simply saying that being a Scientist, or Engineer doesn't really matter to me, I am one that looks at their leadership in the past, rather than their R or D ideology next to their name as in "their political ideology". So I answered the question, and stated what I actually saw as important to me in a political leader.

The idea that "leaders" must "lead" may itself be an ideology.

I'm not sure how deeply I buy it, but some scientists contend if everyone is provided for you basically have no crime.

I'm somewhat unconvinced of that.

Rape, for example, is probably a byproduct of our nature. Sometimes I feel like theft and murder are unnatural, and more byproducts of monetary desperation. Humans condition themselves to survive, but with rape, it all goes back to that basic need to procreate. Everyone desires for their genetics to be passed on. And sexual selection in no way favors everyone equally. So there's genetics that want to be passed on, and they don't much care how. So eventually you'd still think there'd be a guy who wants a girl, and she doesn't want him, and he rapes her.

Outside of simulated sex on command, I don't see what science could be to eliminate rape, and even then, I think people would still seek out the real thing.

Also, on top of this, even Democracy and modern secular societies, with good economies can't eliminate rape, and even worse, it goes widely unreported and often events that are legitimate rape are written off by both the attacker and the victim (I was drunk, I agreed to let him in, He's just aggressive, etc...).

Science a Technology based societies like the Venus Project and whatever that other one is, I forget, they all say on the websites and interviews that resource based economies would be "crime free" and have "no need for courts". While I may agree courts aren't always models for justice, I'd need to see a better argument than "crime just goes away". That's a little pie-in-the-sky for me. It's great on paper, but if their wrong then you have a civilization with crimes and no courts. I think that part of the theory should be refined.

I believe murder is also a byproduct of our nature. Put ANYONE in a certain set of circumstances and they will murder.

__________________Beliefs - Christian. Anti-Republican. Anti-Gun. Complete separation of church and state. Freedom of speech. Freedom to practice any religion in public. Less focus on foreign lands and more focus on our own problems.

I believe murder is also a byproduct of our nature. Put ANYONE in a certain set of circumstances and they will murder.

Murder does seem to bear mostly out of desperation, and lack of education. It's easier for me to rationalize abundance at least severely reducing murder and theft, since they usually link back to notions of property. Some would say rape is as well, but I'm not entirely sure either. Rape does seem much more common among mammals than murder though. There's still no proof wild animals "love" who they have sex with. Also many of our love stories, psychology claims, have "rapey" elements in them.

There's this myth that floats around that highly intelligent super-criminals comprise serial killers, but the truth is most on average drop out of High School, and very few attend College. It comes from the notion that are police are super intelligent and it takes Batman to evade them, which isn't true. Many idiots dupe the police daily. Although I wonder whether the very few smart sociopaths and murderers are byproducts of society or simply born that way. It's hard to tell, and even just having a few in a Court-free society that assumes crime is just a thing of the past would be a huge disruption.

Some people feel we're already a technology or resource based economy and Governments (and religion) have simply tried to stand in the way to try to hold onto power, but when machines finally phase us all out, Government will be phased out as well.

I can't deny access to technology is a soothing thing. It's a known fact that arguing on the internet has actually reduced the incidents of violent crime, because instead of violence, people will just go on Facebook and write things back and forth.

I think for starters, and Ive said this a few times in other threads, Science committees in congress should be made up of actual scientists who have REAL PHDs from accredited universities and who have been vetted by the peer review process. Putting creationists and bible thumpers and people who have degrees from degree factories on these SCIENCE committees has got to stop. Anyone who says the earth is 6,000 years old, women have rape sperm killing vaginas, and other nonsense has no business being on a committee of science.

Engineering promises tangible results. It's not even in the same category as scientists. When an engineer ****s up, you feel it. Bridge collapsing, or a train derailing. When a scientists ****s up, it's just a work in progress theory.

Scientists have made engineer's jobs possible. Without scientists we would have no knowledge of calculas, geometry, algebra, chemistry, physics, geology etc. Without all that many modern engineering jobs would be impossible. And without engineers many scientists experiments and machines would not be possible. You ask any honest engineer or scientists and they will both tell you the fields go hand in hand and directly benefit each other. The two fields are equally important to humanity.

Heck lets throw economists into the mix. Without economist and knowledge of economy and the economy itself not much would get done in any field.

Im tired of politicians thinking they know these things. I want economists working on the economy. I want scientists doing what they do. I want engineers doing what they do. And I want politicians to get the hell out of the way.

Engineers contribute more and have done more for society. And Mathematicians =/= Scientists. Today we have mostly academic credentialists, and I will refrain from saying more before my head explodes.

I voted yes for Scientists for leaders. Not because they are qualified of course.

Lol you know that is factually wrong right? Scientific thought and investigation are the basis of humanities achievements. Modern Agriculture wouldnt even be possible without scientists and good luck feeding our current population without it. Or how about electricity? You like that? You can thank scientists for figuring that one out. Engineering as a field applies science. Without scientific research, discovery, and knowledge engineering would not possible. You clearly dont know just how much science has accomplished.

Another example, solar flares. They bombared our earth routinely and effect our modern society in destructive ways. Without scientists we would have no knowledge of their existence or the suns cycles. With this knowledge we have the priviledge to prepare and think ahead. One good solar flare during an active solar cycle and you are looking at the east coast in darkness. Sure bet people on life support wouldnt like that.

Planes. Aerodynamics. You can thank scientists for that knowledge. Jet streams. You can thank scientists for that knowledge. Fluid dynamics. Scientists. Modern medicine. Scientists. Writing. Scientists. I can go on and on.

One major scientific contribution was longitude. Most people dont realize just how hard it was to figure that one out and just how much it has benefited humanity, but i neg you to read up on it and the scientists who figured it out. Modern society would be impossible without longitude.

You can not look at human history in and say that scientific knowledge has not benefited mankind in a substantial way.

I don't have a problem with science. After all engineering is applied science.

The problem I have is society put scientists on a infallible pedestal, and most of which are academic credentialists. Science is one thing, "Scientists" is another matter. You don't have to be a Scientist to do or apply science. If modern science is so reliable, why aren't scientists held to the same (if not more) responsibility and accountability as engineers?